Skip to main content
Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal 11/2013

01.11.2013 | Original Article

Trainee performance at robotic console and benchmark operative times

verfasst von: Andrea K. Crane, Elizabeth J. Geller, Catherine A. Matthews

Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal | Ausgabe 11/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

It is an ongoing challenge to maintain surgical efficiency while integrating trainee participation. We hypothesize that a program of graduated surgical responsibility for trainees does not hinder operative efficiency.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of trainee performance times, collected prospectively in real time, for robotic cases performed at one university hospital between September 2008 and August 2011. The primary aim was to compare overall operative times between cases performed by trainees versus attendings. Secondary aims were to compare operative times for major portions of each operation by level of training and to establish benchmark operative times for trainees.

Results

During the study period, 98 cases had recorded trainee performance times. Total robot docked time was longer for trainees than for attendings (155 vs 132 min, p = 0.011), but mean performance times for hysterectomy (70 vs 59 min, p = 0.096) and sacrocolpopexy (76 vs 79 min, p = 0.545) were similar. Within the trainees, there was no correlation between surgical time and rank for each step of the procedures. Utilizing mean performance times for all trainees, benchmark operative times were established for each step of hysterectomy in minutes: right side (21), left side (21), bladder flap (10), colpotomy (15), and cuff closure (19); similarly, for sacrocolpopexy: sacral and peritoneal dissection (12), anterior cuff dissection (10), posterior cuff dissection (8), anterior mesh attachment (15), posterior mesh attachment (18), sacral mesh attachment (12), and peritoneal closure (9).

Conclusion

In a program of graduated surgical responsibility, robotic operative efficiency was comparable when trainees were involved as console surgeons.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98:125–129PubMed Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98:125–129PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Ahmed K, Khan MS, Vats A et al (2009) Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments. Int J Surg 7:431–440PubMedCrossRef Ahmed K, Khan MS, Vats A et al (2009) Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments. Int J Surg 7:431–440PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L et al (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:360.e1–360.e9CrossRef Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L et al (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:360.e1–360.e9CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112:1201–1206PubMedCrossRef Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112:1201–1206PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Tan-Kim J, Menefee S, Luber K et al (2011) Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 17:44–49PubMedCrossRef Tan-Kim J, Menefee S, Luber K et al (2011) Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 17:44–49PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A et al (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013PubMedCrossRef Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A et al (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:589–594PubMedCrossRef Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:589–594PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL et al (2009) Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 23:2390–2394PubMedCrossRef Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL et al (2009) Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 23:2390–2394PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Geller EJ, Schuler KM, Boggess JF (2011) Robotic surgical training program in gynecology: how to train residents and fellows. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:224–229PubMedCrossRef Geller EJ, Schuler KM, Boggess JF (2011) Robotic surgical training program in gynecology: how to train residents and fellows. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:224–229PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Finan MA, Silver S, Otts E, Rocconi RP (2010) A comprehensive method to train resident in robotic hysterectomy techniques. J Robotic Surg 4:183–190CrossRef Finan MA, Silver S, Otts E, Rocconi RP (2010) A comprehensive method to train resident in robotic hysterectomy techniques. J Robotic Surg 4:183–190CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Finan MA, Clark ME, Rocconi RP (2010) A novel method for training residents in robotic hysterectomy. J Robotic Surg 4:33–39CrossRef Finan MA, Clark ME, Rocconi RP (2010) A novel method for training residents in robotic hysterectomy. J Robotic Surg 4:33–39CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Parnell BA, Matthews CA (2011) Robot-assisted techniques and outcomes in the realm of pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 54:412–419PubMedCrossRef Parnell BA, Matthews CA (2011) Robot-assisted techniques and outcomes in the realm of pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 54:412–419PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Schreuder HW, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP et al (2012) Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 119:137–149PubMedCrossRef Schreuder HW, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP et al (2012) Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 119:137–149PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Trainee performance at robotic console and benchmark operative times
verfasst von
Andrea K. Crane
Elizabeth J. Geller
Catherine A. Matthews
Publikationsdatum
01.11.2013
Verlag
Springer London
Erschienen in
International Urogynecology Journal / Ausgabe 11/2013
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2102-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2013

International Urogynecology Journal 11/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Urogynecology Digest

Urogynecology digest

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.